AI Article Synopsis

  • The debate on controlling private medical spending contrasts government insurance advocates with those favoring market solutions.
  • Many dismiss the idea of regulating healthcare as a public utility, overlooking its significant historical influence on health law in the 20th century.
  • Closer regulation of the medical industry could align with American governance and culture, indicating that current market-based approaches might be more temporary than they appear.

Article Abstract

The debate over how to tame private medical spending tends to pit advocates of government-provided insurance--a single-payer scheme--against those who would prefer to harness market forces to hold down costs. When it is mentioned at all, the possibility of regulating the medical industry as a public utility is brusquely dismissed as anathema to the American regulatory tradition. This dismissiveness, however, rests on a failure to appreciate just how deeply the public utility model shaped health law in the twentieth century-- and how it continues to shape health law today. Closer economic regulation of the medical industry may or may not be prudent, but it is by no means incompatible with our governing institutions and political culture. Indeed, the durability of such regulation suggests that the modern embrace of market-based approaches in the medical industry may be more ephemeral than it seems.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

medical industry
12
public utility
8
health law
8
medicine public
4
public calling
4
calling debate
4
debate tame
4
tame private
4
medical
4
private medical
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!